|
|
Ubisoft: Games to cost $60m soon
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 16th June 2009
Ubisoft's Yves Guillemot reckons that game budgets will soon reach an average of around $60 million USD.
Discussing the topic of budgets with CNBC, Guillemot claimed that the next generation of games will be comparable to making a full CGI movie.
"The next generation is going to be so powerful that playing a game is going to be the equivalent of playing a CGI movie today," Guillemot said in the interview.
He then went on to discuss how these rising expectations will affect budgets, pushing expenses up from the current average of $30 million USD (£18.5 million GBP) and potentially doubling them in the near future.
Speaking about what this next generation of consoles may hold for gamers, Guillemot downplayed the importance of motion-sensing tech for hardcore gamers and insisted that there was still a lot of enjoyment that could be had from using a standard gamepad - and that a gamepad wouldn't leave you physically exhausted.
"The current pad for gamers is giving them a lot," he said. "They play for hours, so they don't want to get up and down. They don’t want to be tired after five minutes. These games are about reactivity."
What do you think? Is that why you prefer playing on the PC rather than the Wii? Let us know in the forums.
Related
Comments (15)- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2010
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
A good multiplayer online experience is key I think here to differentiate the good games that give value vs the ones that dont. Look at PC games like Battlefield 2, Supreme Commander and Left 4 Dead. Cost per hour of play must now be measured in peanuts for me since their multiplayer value is so good.
A movie at £13 say is 2hrs, so games are still good value. People's expectations are out of whack with reality.
Comparing their budgets to film budgets?
Games tend to be longer, and while some are as atrociously written as a Van Damme film, usually last longer and have more replayability than a movie has re-watch..ability?
The same is true of movies - A producer/director/whoever can't reasonably say "This is going to make X million dollars" every single time.
Haha +1
It's true in a way, the last game I consider to be AAA was HL2. Not only was it the best (by far) single player FPS I had ever played, it also came with CSS, which had more playability for me than most people I suspect, since I had never played CS beforehand.
So to answer your question, 5 years ago.
These assholes are managing the wonderful art of the videogame into the ground.
Hahahaha. I can't say I've experienced any of his films, or any woman-based crazying over him. Perhaps I ought to hang around with more females..
It doesn't make sense to me how we hear all these reports about games selling better than movies and music; a game costing less to make than a full length action-CGI movie like Transformers 2, The Matrix, whatever; a movie costs £6/$10 to go and see at the cinemas and a bit more to buy the DVD, yet games still are still priced £30/40!
the user base for a console game is much smaller than movies which appeal to a broader audience. IF you go see transformers 2 with a family of 4 that's ~$40 in tickets. If you buy a game for your whole family that's ~$60 per family, no one buys more than one copy. and the consoles only have several million users where as pretty much everyone can go watch a movie on several different continents.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you would be surprised how much it costs to employee 100 people for the 1+ years it takes to make a polished game especially creating all the content that's the real time sink and it only gets bigger as graphics improve.